2023 EducationalPolicy TitleIXPolicyImplementationPrevalence Full

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/370117482
Title IX Policy Implementation and Sexual

Harassment Prevalence in K-12 Schools
Article in Educational Policy · April 2023

DOI: 10.1177/08959048231163809
CITATIONS READS
0 73
3 authors, including:
Billie-Jo Grant
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
15 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Department of Justice School Safety Study View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Billie-Jo Grant on 21 April 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1163809
research-article2023
EPXXXX10.1177/08959048231163809Educational PolicyGrant et al.
Article
Educational Policy
Title IX Policy
1–38
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Implementation and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08959048231163809
https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231163809
Sexual Harassment journals.sagepub.com/home/epx
Prevalence in K-12
Schools
Billie-Jo Grant1 , Jeffrey Haverland2,

and Jessica Kalbfleisch1
Abstract
This study examined the prevalence of student-to-student and staff-
to-student sexual harassment in K-12 schools and school district compliance
with Title IX using a retrospective survey of young adults. Participants
(n = 511) were asked to describe their knowledge of policies and procedures
regarding Title IX, the prevalence of sexual harassment, and the school’s
observed response to harassment using a 34-item, anonymous online
survey. Descriptive statistics revealed that 13.4% of participants perceived
that sexual harassment at their K-12 school district was at a “moderate”
or “high” level, 50.1% reported that they either knew someone who
experienced sexual harassment by a school employee or experienced it
themselves, and 17.4% (n = 89) of individuals personally experienced one
or more incident of staff-to-student sexual harassment. Nearly all (94%)
students were unable to identify their Title IX compliance officer and 70%
were unaware of how to file grievances. School districts without policies
and materials that address sexual harassment had statistically significantly
1
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, USA
2
University of Dubuque, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Billie-Jo Grant, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA
93407, USA.
Email: bgrant02@calpoly.edu
2 Educational Policy 00(0)
higher rates of harassment than school districts with policies (p = .01) and
materials (p < .01).
Keywords
Title IX, sexual harassment, K-12 education, school employee sexual
misconduct, educator sexual abuse, policy implementation
Introduction
As recognized by the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, Congress,
and other federal agencies, Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments to
the Higher Education Act prohibits the sexual harassment of students as a
form of discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities. As
a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, school districts are
required to comply with Title IX regulations, including prevention, investiga-
tion, and remediation of complaints. Specifically, among other requirements,
school districts must establish a safe environment, develop and announce
grievance procedures, train their staff, educate students and parents, and
identify a trained compliance officer. This study sought to examine K-12
school district compliance with Title IX using a retrospective survey of young
adults. Participants (n = 511) were asked to describe their knowledge of poli-
cies and procedures, the prevalence of sexual harassment, and the school
district’s observed response to the harassment. This paper will first present
the history and definition of Title IX requirements, followed by the method-
ology for this study, the results, a discussion, and limitations.
Background
History and Definition of Title IX
Title IX advises that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of
sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-
jected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance” (Education Amendments Act of 1972, 2018).
Historically, Title IX was synonymous with gender equity in sports (Frost,
2005; Jones, 2010). Title IX is far more complex and holds greater protection
than equity in sports, but the application of Title IX was complicated by the
absence of an explicit reference to sexual harassment. Despite this absence,
the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, Congress, and other fed-
eral agencies have interpreted sexual harassment to be a form of sex
Grant et al. 3
discrimination and a violation of a person’s civil rights under Title IX

(Brotine, 2019).
Eight years prior to the passage of Title IX, Titles VI and VII (Mayer,
2016) laid the groundwork for equity, but passing Title IX proved to be chal-
lenging. In 1970, Congresswoman Edith Green initiated legislation “prohibit-
ing sex discrimination in education and congressional hearings on the
education and employment of women.” This legislation was formally intro-
duced and defeated in 1971 then reintroduced and passed in 1972 (Frost,
2005, p. 562). After Title IX became a law in 1972, attempts to amend the
language continued. In 1974, an amendment to exempt revenue-generating
programs from Title IX oversight was introduced and defeated. The final ver-
sion was approved by congress and President Ford on July 21, 1975 and gave
all educational institutions 3 years to comply. The implementation of Title IX
in all educational institutions receiving federal funds was re-emphasized with
the passage of the Civil Rights Remedies Equalization Act of 1986 and the
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Application of Title IX in K-12 Schools

Proposed Title IX language provides the Office of Civil Rights with greater
ability to enforce Title IX in K-12 schools while defining sexual harassment
as:
A school employee conditioning an educational benefit or service upon a

person’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct (often called quid pro quo
harassment); or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal
access to the school’s education program or activity; or sexual assault (Brotine,
2019).
The inclusion of school employees in the definition is indicative of “educator

sexual misconduct”—the abuse of students by school employees—in K-12
schools. Accordingly, case law and empirical studies demonstrate that perpe-
trators of sexual harassment in K-12 schools include students, teachers,
coaches, and administrators (Mackinnon, 2016). As Title IX explicitly applies
to any institution receiving federal funding, K-12 schools carry the burden of
responsibility to protect students from sexual harassment by providing access
to a safe school environment where mental and physical impacts of harass-
ment are minimized (Brotine, 2019). Additionally, the Every Student
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) encourages the development of laws, regula-
tions, and policies for better hiring procedures that prevent employment of
anyone who has sexually abused a minor (Title VIII, March 20, 2019). Yet, as
of August 2021 only 13 states having either enacted or proposed laws (Enough
Abuse 2021) to do so. The lack of compliance with ESSA guidelines, sup-
ports a greater focus on Title IX and sexual harassment in K-12 schools.
Existing Title IX Research in K-12 Schools

Few major studies have explored sexual harassment in K-12 schools. One
study by Hand and Sanchez (2000) found that 61% of surveyed students in
grades 10 and 11 had been harassed by a student or a staff member at school.
Furthermore, Young et al. (2009) noted that 40-50% of students had experi-
enced some form of sexual harassment by a student or a staff member in a
given year (Hill & Kearl, 2011). When K-12 sexual harassment was
researched by the American Association of University Women, survey data
showed that nearly 50% of students in grades 7 to 12 experienced sexual
harassment by a student or a staff member in 2010 to 2011 while 33% of girls
and 24% of boys had observed sexual harassment by a student or a staff
member at school (Hill & Kearl, 2011). Even more alarming was the finding
by Mayer (2016) showing that 81% of students—male and female, grades 8
through 11—had personally experienced sexual harassment by a student or a
staff member at some point in their K-12 lives. Furthermore, Klein and Blad
(2018) noted 70% of girls experienced sexual harassment by a student or a
staff member in high school and 25% of girls experienced sexual assault or
abuse before turning 18.
Much of the available data focuses on sexual harassment in secondary
schools, but sexual harassment also occurs in elementary schools (Lichty
et al., 2008). If we assume that harassment does not affect younger students,
those students become more vulnerable due to victimization or failure to
develop appropriate boundaries. At the elementary level, glossing over or
ignoring sexual harassment can send the message that it is neither a problem
nor a priority (Cristo, 2019; Lichty et al., 2008), and if students receive that
message, harassment may continue unchecked. Stemming harassment must
begin with leadership at all levels of K-12 education. As noted by Meyer
(2008) and Lichty and Campbell (2012), if school administrators do nothing
about sexual harassment complaints, teachers and students have little incen-
tive to take action (Hill & Kearl, 2011).
In addition to empirical studies, the prevalence of sexual harassment in
schools can be assessed through filed complaints. In 2010, the United States
Department of Education received “7,000 complaints and [conducted] 54
compliance reviews” regarding sexual harassment in K-12 schools (Jones,
2010). As of November 2014, the Office of Civil Rights was investigating 24
Grant et al. 5
schools (elementary and secondary) for mishandling incidents under Title IX

(Did You Hear?, 2015). More recently, in August 2017, The Atlantic
(Keierleber, 2017) reported 137 school districts under investigation by the
Office for Civil Rights for 154 Title IX sexual-violence complaints and noted
pending investigations—against public districts, private institutions, and
charter school networks in 37 states and the District of Columbia—stretching
back to December 2010. It is important to note that most students never file a
federal Title IX complaint.
Educational Institutions have a responsibility to provide a hostile-free
environment under one or more of the federal anti-discrimination laws
including Titles VI, VII, and IX (Title VI; Title VII; Title IX). A “hostile envi-
ronment” occurs when the conduct unreasonably interferes with a staff or
students ability to work or learn. When considering hostile school environ-
ments, the terms bullying and harassment may be used interchangeably to the
detriment of sexual harassment reporting. Since the 1980s schools have had
to address sexual harassment, but the focus has since shifted to bullying
(Miller & Mondschein, 2017). Fineran and Bennett (1998) found sexual
harassment interferes with the social development and academic success of
students, making it akin to bullying, but Hill and Kearl (2011) differentiated
the two in that bullying tends to occur in childhood whereas sexual harass-
ment begins in adolescence. In line with this, Gruber and Fineran (2008)
determined that grade level is positively correlated with incidences of sexual
harassment and negatively correlated with incidences of bullying. In cases
where bullying is assumed, policies and procedures must ensure that it does
not escalate to sexual harassment. Notably, bullying can violate Title IX if it
is “predicated on sex or gender” (Miller & Mondschein, 2017), but “must rise
to a certain level of severity to constitute an actionable claim” (Fleming,
2014, p. 525). As noted by Russlynn H. Ali, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights under President Barack Obama, “misconduct that falls under a school’s
anti-bullying policy also may trigger responsibilities under one or more of the
federal anti-discrimination laws” (Dillon, 2010) including Titles VI, VII, and
IX.
Challenges to Title IX Implementation in K-12 Schools

Although Title IX language is clear, a school districts compliance with the
law can be problematic (Meyer & Somoza-Norton, 2018). The Office of
Civil Rights (OCR) and the United States Supreme Court agreed that if a
school administrator knows or reasonably should know that sexual harass-
ment is happening, they must take steps to address it reasonably and promptly
(Brotine, 2019; Brown, 2017; Mitchell, 2010, and Miller & Mondschein,
2017). Failure to acknowledge sexual harassment and respond appropriately

may leave schools liable by way of deliberate indifference. Deliberate indif-
ference manifests by someone in authority knowing about the sexual harass-
ment (Mackinnon, 2016; Surface et al., 2014) and failing to do something
about it (Mackinnon, 2016). School districts must take steps to respond rea-
sonably and promptly, thoroughly investigate, and prevent any retaliation or
further harassment (Mackinnon, 2016). Consequently, schools cannot ignore
Title IX issues.
One of the requirements of Title IX is for K-12 schools to appoint a Title
IX coordinator (Hill & Kearl, 2011; Meyer & Somoza-Norton, 2018). The
Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance issued by the Office of Civil Rights in
2001, the interim guidance released in 2017, and now the 2020 Title IX regu-
lations, require schools to have an adequately trained Title IX coordinator
(Hartle, 2017; OCR, 2020). However, Meyer and Somoza-Norton (2018)
found that coordinators surveyed in California and Colorado were poorly
equipped to do the work required by their position. Even with a Title IX coor-
dinator in place, Meyer and Somoza-Norton (2018) found that contact infor-
mation is difficult to find, job descriptions are inadequate or too broad,
training is insufficient, many coordinators do not clearly understand their
role, and few coordinators have adequate time to do their job effectively.
Schools also have other requirements to provide training and prompt
investigations of concerns and complaints. Non-compliance with these man-
dates can result in Title IX sanctions and schools may be accountable for
monetary damages (Surface et al., 2014). Title IX requirements to provide
students an education free from sexual harassment are largely unfunded and
rely primarily under pressure to lose funding (Meyer & Somoza-Norton,
2018). Since 2001, the Office for Civil Rights has mandated specific respon-
sibilities for schools which include publishing and disseminating “a policy
opposing sex discrimination. . .a grievance procedure for complaints. . .and
procedures for the ‘prompt and equitable resolution of complaints” (Lichty
et al., 2008). Appropriately, schools are required to set and make available
clear policies and procedures (Mayer, 2016) and widely distribute them to all
members of the school community. To be effective, policies and guidance
should be easily searchable on the district website, and the identity of the
Title IX coordinator, their contact information, and all relevant harassment
and discrimination documentation should be readily available.
School Employee Perpetrated Sexual Harassment in K-12 Schools

Title IX is also applicable to school employee perpetrated sexual abuse,
assault and misconduct of students (Mackinnon, 2016). Even initial
Grant et al. 7
communication or contact that is not overtly sexual, physical or malicious

can be problematic, since merely the perception of nonsexual conduct can
take on sexual connotations and therefore fall under Title IX guidance
(Brotine, 2019). Sexual crimes against students may include indecent liber-
ties with a child, sexual assault, sexual abuse, rape, and child pornography
whereas misconduct may include sexual acts or communication that are not
necessarily criminal but are unethical (B.-J. Grant et al., 2019). While crimi-
nal laws are well-defined, ethical misconduct is less understood and poten-
tially underreported.
The sexual misconduct of students by school personnel has lived in the
background of education for decades, but more recently, social media,
news media and reporting expectations have contributed to both visibility
and potential magnitude (Abboud et al., 2020; Goldman, 2009; Prairie
View A&M University, 2021). Unfortunately, past practice identifying and
addressing school employee sexual misconduct and a failure to adequately
confront sexual harassment in K-12 schools “leaves the impression of per-
mitting sexually predatory teachers at least one free bite” (Mackinnon,
2016, p. 2071) before their behavior begins to raise alarm. Shakeshaft
(2018) noted that within 7 months since the start of 2018, at least one
teacher in every state had been arrested for the sexual abuse of a student or
students. If one then considers misconduct by support personnel and
administrators, the number of victims rises even higher. Quantifying mis-
conduct is one thing, but many states lack even basic legislation to super-
ficially address misconduct in schools. B.-J. Grant et al. (2019) found 39
states lacked legislation to protect students from predatory teachers, and
Abboud et al. (2020) noted only 29 states with specific educator sexual
misconduct statutes.
The key to addressing sexual misconduct would appear to be similar in
approach as Title IX violations. Mitchell (2010) suggested that when creating
a plan for identifying misconduct schools must “teach all school personnel
where to go for help, whom to call for help, and how to react if they suspect
child sexual abuse.” In 2015, ESSA reauthorized ESEA and included lan-
guage requiring school personnel to report incidences of sexual misconduct
by a school employee (B.-J. Grant et al., 2019). Once a case of misconduct is
reported in a K-12 setting, the response should be even stricter than in stu-
dent-student harassment cases (Mayer, 2016). This escalated expectation to
respond to teacher-student relationships would be in line with language from
Title VII, forbidding supervisor-employee harassment, as teachers and stu-
dents have a similar relationship. A swift and substantial response to educator
misconduct has been supported by only a handful of states including Texas,
New York, Mississippi, and Missouri. Lawmakers in each of these states have
created legal ramifications for educator misconduct and violations of Title IX

(Surface et al., 2014). Missouri’s Amy Hestir Act provides well-defined guid-
ance for educator sexual misconduct including:
Defining misconduct; triggering automatic investigations; providing

information to districts looking to hire a teacher who has been terminated, non-
renewed, or allowed to resign; assigning an authorized district representatives
to response to requests for information; creating specific examples defining
boundary-crossing; preventing settlements where boards are held to the notion
of a preponderance of evidence; mandating annual training; and creating
guidelines for reporting that are accessible by the entire school community
(Surface et al., 2014).
Even plans in place require a substantial amount of training and support to be

implemented effectively. As with Title IX, schools have adopted and dissemi-
nated policies regarding teacher sexual abuse, but faculty and staff continue
to be unaware of what constitutes misconduct (B.-J. Grant et al., 2019).
Ultimately, K-12 institutions have an obligation to deliver a “sex-equal edu-
cation into the hands of those who have the capacity and duty to provide it”
(Mackinnon, 2016, p. 2105).
Challenges to Title IX Implementation in K-12 Schools

Little evidence exists that schools have reliably worked to prevent sexual
harassment and misconduct (Mackinnon, 2016). Institutional liability under
Title IX, particularly in the context of sexual misconduct in schools, contin-
ues to gain national attention (Mayer, 2016). Under this scrutiny, the public is
becoming more aware of reports of sexual abuse in schools (Meyer &
Somoza-Norton, 2018) and are demanding change. The starting place for
dealing with harassment and misconduct is Title IX, and “Title IX has helped
to make clear that educational institutions have a responsibility to protect
every student’s right to learn in a safe environment and to prevent unjust
deprivations of that right” (DeVos, 2017). Even though the consequences of
failing to follow Title IX can be severe, prior to 2018, no school had lost
federal funding for failing to uphold Title IX (Mackinnon, 2016; Mayer,
2016). In 2018, Chicago Public Schools were barred from a $4 million fed-
eral grant due to an insufficient response to Title IX complaints (Associated
Press, 2018). In most cases, when a court attempts to hold a school account-
able under Title IX, that school is asked only to respond effectively which
may be little more than going through the motions (Mackinnon, 2016).
Grant et al. 9
The state of Title IX became more precarious under former Education

Secretary DeVos. One of the most important changes is the requirement that
harassment be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive as opposed to past
legislation requiring it to be severe, persistent, or pervasive (OCR, 2001,
2020). The new regulations attempt to equalize due process for both the
accuser and the accused with explicit dismissal language and the right of the
accused to cross examine their accuser face-to-face. Furthermore, the new
regulations require schools to establish and maintain a consistent burden of
proof that is based on a “preponderance of evidence” (great than 50%) or
“clear and convincing” (more likely to be true than untrue). Each of these
changes appear to favor due process for the accused and potentially make it
harder for survivors to both report abuse and find resolution. Although the
new rules explicitly impact K-12 and post-secondary schools, they raise con-
cerns over the prioritization of accused rights over victims’ rights (Blad,
2017; Klein & Blad, 2018). The revised language makes it harder for victims
to achieve justice for sexual assault and harassment under Title IX because it
requires clear and convincing evidence including actual knowledge. It also
further narrows the definition of sexual harassment to “unwelcome conduct
on the basis of sex that is so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive
that it denies a person access to the schools education program or activity”
(OCR, 2020). Other complications of the 2020 regulations include the poten-
tial to ignore off-campus incidents and cause confusion over the role of the
school in responding to online harassment (Klein & Blad, 2018). The U.S.
Department of Education released additional proposed amendments to the
implementation of Title IX on June 23, 2022. The Department is summariz-
ing and responding to comments received and will likely issue the resulting
final regulations and changes with a new effective date in 2023.
Using Title IX legislation to address sexual harassment and school
employee sexual misconduct is undermined by the lack of studies on both
harassment or misconduct in K-12 schools. Meyer, Somoza-Norton, Longren,
Meyer et al. (2018) found that there is an inadequate number of empirical
studies on Title IX in K-12 education and therefore we have a “limited
knowledge-base about other elements of sex discrimination in schools cov-
ered by Title IX” (p. 6). These authors further contend that of the 70 articles
published since 1972, only 23 were empirical, and of those, eight focused on
athletics. Current data on the prevalence of school employee sexual miscon-
duct is limited—the last national study in 2004 indicated nearly 10% of stu-
dents being victimized by school employees (Shakeshaft, 2004). Consequently,
a lack of knowledge about Title IX is pervasive. Kurtz et al. (2018) noted that
only 21% of educators reported they were extremely knowledgeable about
what they should do if they witness sexual harassment and less than 25%
were knowledgeable about how sexual assault and harassment are defined in
their district policies. Systemically, our justice system is failing to put time
and effort into refining Title IX, and case law shaping Title IX liability has
not been addressed by the Supreme Court since 1998 (Mayer, 2016).
Shakeshaft et al. (2019) have taken steps to describe specific practices for a
standard of care for the prevention of sexual misconduct by school employ-
ees with categories including policies, hiring, training, and reporting.
The Relationship Between Title IX Implementation and Sexual

Harassment in K-12 Schools
The realities of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in K-12 schools are
undeniable. Two of the largest nationally representative studies of sexual
harassment in schools found that nearly 80% of students in grades 8 through
11 experienced sexual harassment by a student or a staff member during their
school career. Subsequent studies have found a similar prevalence of harass-
ment in K-12 schools but has only recently received serious attention (Lichty
et al., 2008), and there exists “no published evaluations of the degree to
which primary and secondary school policies follow federal guidelines
regarding content and accessibility” (Lichty & Campbell, 2012, p. 609) rela-
tive to Title IX. As concluded by Mackinnon (2016), schools are mostly
unaccountable for sexual harassment, even at a time where Title IX is receiv-
ing intense federal attention.
Large government-funded studies that gather data on child sexual abuse
focus on child sexual abuse incidents outside the school setting and fail to
gather data on school employee sexual misconduct and the abuse of students
by school personnel. A few examples of national government funded studies
and government offices that do not collect indicators for school employee
sexual misconduct are: the National Crime and Victimization Survey, the
National Violence Against Women Survey, the Office of Civil Rights and the
US Department of Education. In addition, criminal records and social service
departments tracking systems are antiquated and unable to be aggregated.
Furthermore, the majority of cases are underreported to law enforcement and
social welfare institutions by school administrators and victims, making it
even more difficult to track. More data is needed to understand why and how
often school employee sexual misconduct occurs in our K-12 school
districts.
This current study demonstrates a strong initial step to remove some of the
uncertainty surrounding Title IX, sexual harassment, and school employee
sexual misconduct in K-12 schools.
Grant et al. 11
Methods
This study used an anonymous retrospective survey of young adults to gather
information concerning students’ knowledge and experiences with K-12
school employee sexual misconduct. The goal of the survey was to get the
most up-to-date data on Title IX policy implementation and prevalence of
sexual misconduct of students by school personnel.
Measure
The survey for this study was comprised of 34 items and took participants
approximately 10 min to complete. Items included questions about their
K-12 school district, their knowledge of policies and procedures, the level
of harassment at their school overall, the experience of students at their
school, and their own experiences with sexual harassment. Survey items
included multiple choice, Likert style questions, select all that apply, and
open-ended response opportunities. The survey was validated with experts
in sexual harassment and school employee sexual misconduct including
Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, Dr. Glenn Lipson, and Terri Miller . The survey
was uploaded to Survey Monkey, an online survey platform, and distrib-
uted using a link. The survey was administered using a single link/contact
between October 2018 and April 2019. All responses were anonymous
and no identifying information was collected and no follow-ups were
conducted.
Data Collection
The study was approved by the Cal Poly State University Institutional
Review Board. The sample for this survey was recruited by university pro-
fessors, Title IX officers, and sexual harassment organizations who were
contacted by email and asked to distribute this survey to their students and
organizations. The survey was completed by college students and other
young adults across the United States (35 states represented). The sample is
therefore convenient, which suggests that these results may be biased to the
students who elected to complete the survey and not representative of those
who elected not to volunteer to complete the survey. The survey was
designed to be delivered to young adults who had already graduated from
K-12 to avoid the need for parental consent to participate. Data was
maintained in a locked office in a password-protected file on a password-
protected computer.
Analyses
The analyses for this study were completed in several steps. First, the data
was reviewed for outliers, missing data, and the presence or absence of
response. The authors also ran frequencies and cross tabs to identify any
errors. Responses from 38 individuals were completely removed from analy-
ses due to non-responses for any of the questions. Another 17 responses were
excluded under certain sections of the analysis due to participants giving
incomplete answers to a question or submitting the survey before completing
all questions. With a finalized database composed of 511 respondents, authors
conducted descriptive analyses to examine the survey responses using JMP, a
statistical analyses software. Descriptive statistics included the calculation of
percentages, frequencies, and means across all variables of interest. Chi-
square test, were used to examine the relationship between perceived levels
of sexual harassment and presence of policies and materials. Independent
samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to explore how average sex-
ual harassment ratings varied by student demographics, location, and school
commitment (α = .05). All data is presented in aggregated form.
Results
Level of Harassment at Schools
A total of 511 students completed a series of questions that asked them to rate
the level of sexual harassment at their K-12 school district using a 6-point
Likert scale (None = 0, Very low = 1, Low = 2, Moderate = 3, High = 4, Very
high = 5). For this article average ratings for student-to-student sexual harass-
ment were 2.32 (Low/moderate) and staff-to-student harassment were 1.09
(Very low). Average ratings for student-to-student and staff-to-student sexual
harassment were examined by varying student demographics, location of
their K-12 school and the sexual harassment and prevention materials distrib-
uted by their school district (see Figures 1 and 2 & Tables 1 and 2).
Student-to-Student Sexual Harassment. Females tended to observe a higher

level of student-to-student sexual harassment on their school campus com-
pared to males (females = 2.47, males = 1.86), and this difference was statisti-
cally significant (t = 4.74, p < .01). Schools located in rural areas had higher
average rates of perceived student-to-student sexual harassment (2.43) than
suburban (2.31) and urban schools (2.28), but there were no statistically sig-
nificant differences. Participants were also asked if their school districts had
a sexual harassment policy and if the school district distributed any materials
Grant et al. 13
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4

2.3
2.1
1.8
Male Female Rural Suburban Urban Both Or Neither

Gender Location School Commitment
Figure 1. Level of student-to-student sexual harassment by gender, location of

school, and school commitment.
1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1

0.9
Male Female Rural Suburban Urban Both Or Neither

Gender Location School Commitment
Figure 2. Level of staff-to-student sexual harassment by gender, location of

school, and school commitment.
Table 1. Level of Student-to-Student Sexual Harassment Levels by Type, Gender,

Location of School, and School Commitment.
N Mean Std dev t-test/F-test p-value Effect size

Gender
Male 99 1.86 1.24 4.74 <.01* 1.17
Female 295 2.47 1.14
Location of School
Rural 65 2.43 1.30 0.33 .72 0.002
Suburban 247 2.31 1.16
Urban 83 2.28 1.23
School Commitment
Both 103 2.06 1.17 3.40 .03* 0.017
Or 124 2.37 1.19
Neither 169 2.44 1.21
*statistically significant.
on sexual harassment prevention and education. These responses were classi-

fied into the school’s commitment to prevention and awareness. A school
Table 2. Level of Staff-to-Student Sexual Harassment Levels by Type, Gender,

Location of School, and School Commitment.
N Mean Std dev t-test/F-test p-value Effect size

Gender
Male 94 0.88 1.05 2.30 .02* 1.05
Female 236 1.18 1.05
Location of School
Rural 56 1.18 0.99 0.32 .73 0.002
Suburban 203 1.10 1.05
Urban 72 1.03 1.11
School Commitment
Both 23 1.17 1.17 0.17 .85 0.001
Or 30 1.17 1.19
Neither 279 1.08 1.21
*statistically significant.
either had both a policy and handout, a policy or a handout, or neither. When
focusing on a school’s commitment to the prevention and awareness of stu-
dent-to-student harassment, 24.7% of schools had both a policy and hand-
outs, 30.1% had one or the others, and 45.2% had neither. Average ratings for
student-to-student harassment were then examined by the school’s level of
commitment to prevention and awareness. Schools that had both policy and
handouts, had lower level of sexual harassment (2.06) than schools that only
had a policy or a handout (2.37) or neither (2.44), and this difference was
statistically significant (F = 3.40, p = .03). This conveys that the perceived
level of sexual harassment depends on the presence or absence of sexual
harassment prevention policies and prevention and education materials.
Staff-to-Student Sexual Harassment. Females tended to observe a higher levels

of staff-student sexual harassment on their school campus compared to males
(females = 1.18, males = 0.88), and this difference was statistically significant
(t = 2.30, p < .02). Schools located in rural areas had higher average rates of
perceived staff -to-student sexual harassment (1.18) than suburban (1.10) and
urban schools (1.03), but there were no statistically significant differences.
Participants were also asked if their school districts had a staff-to-student
sexual harassment policy and if they distributed any materials on sexual
harassment prevention and education. These responses were classified into
the schools commitment to the prevention and awareness or staff-to-student
sexual harassment. A school either had both a policy and handouts, a policy
or a handout, or neither. When focusing on the materials schools distributed
Grant et al. 15
to their students regarding staff-to-student harassment 5.9% of schools had

both a policy and handouts, 8.4% had one or the other, and 85.7% had neither.
Average ratings for staff-to-student harassment were then examined by the
schools level of commitment to prevention and awareness. Schools that had
both a policy and handouts or one or the other, had higher levels of staff-to-
student sexual harassment (1.17) than schools that only had neither (1.08),
but there were no statistically significant differences.
Students were asked how much they feared sexual harassment occurring
and by whom (see Figure 3). Students feared another student harassing them
the most with 39.2% reporting very high to moderate harassment and 31.9%
reporting somewhat. A known adult was the next most feared individual with
15.3% reporting very high to moderate and 14.7% saying somewhat. There
were 9% of students that said they feared being sexually harassed by a coach
and 12.8% somewhat fearing harassment by a coach. A teacher was feared by
7.7% of students and somewhat feared by 13.8% of students. School admin-
istrators were feared by 4.1% of students and somewhat feared by 2.8% of
students. A family member and a parent were collectively feared by 8.6% and
somewhat feared by 5.1% of students. Harassment by others was feared by
1.8% of students.
School District’s Effort to Prevent Sexual Harassment

School districts can try to reduce sexual harassment on their campuses by
providing materials about sexual harassment to students, adopting and imple-
menting policies to protect students from sexual harassment, educating stu-
dents on how to report sexual harassment, and setting boundaries between
student and school employee relationships. Students were asked whether
their school district did any of these actions. In Table 3, the prevalence of
harassment materials, prevention policies, reporting knowledge and relation-
ship rules within student’s school districts are shown. There were 39.2%
(n = 200) of students who attended school districts that distributed materials
about sexual harassment while 48.8% (n = 249) of school districts did not and
12% (n = 61) did not know. Of the 200 students who received the materials,
26.5% (n = 53) of the materials addressed employee-to-student sexual harass-
ment, 52% (n = 104) did not and 21% (n = 42) were unsure whether it was
present within the materials. There were 40.4% (n = 206) of students who
knew their school district had a sexual harassment prevention policy and
13.9% (n = 71) who reported that there was no prevention policy. From the
206 students who knew of their sexual harassment policy, 23.3% (n = 48) of
the policies addressed employee-to-student sexual harassment, 26.2% (n = 54)
did not and 50.1% (n = 104) were unsure of the descriptions within their
Yes (n=222) Somewhat (n=436)
37.8%
Another student
28.7%
7.7%
A teacher
13.8%
An after school activity 3.6%

supervisor 5.3%
9.0%
A coach
12.8%
4.1%
A school administrator
5.5%
15.3%
An adult
14.7%
12.2%
A community member
14.2%
4.1%
A family member
2.8%
4.5%
A parent
2.3%
1.8%
Other
0.0%
Figure 3. Percentage of students reporting by whom they feared being sexually

harassed.
Note. Total of percentages do not round to 100 due to rounding.
Grant et al. 17
Yes (n=31) No (n=478)
6.1%
93.9%
Figure 4. Percentage of students reporting whether they could identify their Title
IX Officer.
district’s policy. Out of 511 students, 29.6% (n = 151) understood how to

report or file a complaint about sexual harassment to the school. Students
were asked whether they knew who the Title IX officer was for their school.
Out of 509 students, only 6.1% (n = 31) knew who their Title IX officer was,
leaving 93.9% (n = 478) of students unaware of the individual as depicted in
Figure 4.
While the students were attending school, 39.5% (n = 202) were friends
with a school employee on social media, 59.1% (n = 302) of students were not
and 1.4% (n = 7) could not recall. Among the 202 students who were friends
with a school employee on social media, 17.8% (n = 36) reported knowing
that their school had a rule against their school employees befriending a cur-
rent student on social media, 50% (n = 101) of student’s schools did not and
32.3% (n = 65) were not sure. A total of 39.1% (n = 200) of students were
allowed by their school district to have a school employee’s cell phone num-
ber, 28% (n = 143) were not allowed and 32.9% (n = 168) were unsure.
Sexual Harassment by School Employees

Students were asked whether someone they knew from their K-12 experience
was sexually harassed by a school employee and whether they themselves
were sexually harassed by a school employee. In total, 256 respondents
(50.1%) reported that they either knew someone who experienced sexual
harassment by a school employee or experienced it themselves. Almost 50%
Teacher 47.2%
Athletic coach 19.3%
Athletic trainer 7.1%
Athletic assistant coach 6.9%
Substitute teacher 4.0%
Other 3.4%
Assistant/vice principal 2.4%
Teacher's aid/assistant 2.4%
Student teacher 2.4%
Volunteer 1.3%
Elective teacher 1.1%
Custodian 1.1%
Principal 0.8%
District administrator 0.5%
Bus driver 0.3%
Figure 5. Percentage of students reporting which school employee(s) sexually

harassed them (n = 379).
Note. Total of percentages do not round to 100 due to rounding.
of respondents (n = 250, 48.9%) reported that someone they knew experi-

enced one or more incidents of staff-to-student sexual harassment and 17.4%
(n = 89) of individuals personally experienced one or more incident of staff-
to-student sexual harassment. For each of the incidents, they were then asked
Grant et al. 19
Table 3. Percentage of Students Who Reported on Their School District’s

Contribution to Sexual Harassment Education and Prevention.
Contribution Yes No Not sure

Materials
Did your school district distribute 39.2 (n = 200) 48.8 (n = 249) 12.0 (n = 61)
materials about sexual
harassment?
Did the materials address 26.5 (n = 53) 52.0 (n = 104) 21.0 (n = 42)
employee on student sexual
harassment?
Sexual harassment prevention policy
Did your school district have a 40.4 (n = 206) 13.9 (n = 71) 45.7 (n = 233)
sexual harassment prevention
policy?
Did the policy address employee 23.3 (n = 48) 26.2 (n = 54) 50.1 (n = 104)
on student sexual harassment?
Reporting incidences
Did you know how to report or 29.6 (n = 151) 70.4 (n = 360) N/A
file a complaint?
Did you know who your Title IX 6.1 (n = 31) 93.9 (n = 478) N/A
officer was?
Student and employee relationships
Were you friends on social media 39.5 (n = 202) 59.1 (n = 302) 1.4 (n = 7)
with any school employee?
Did your school district have a 17.8 (n = 36) 50.0 (n = 101) 32.2 (n = 65)
rule against becoming friends
with any school employee on
social media?
Were you allowed by your 39.1 (n = 200) 28.0 (n = 143) 32.9 (n = 168)
school district to have school
employees’ cell phone number?
Note. Total of percentages are not 100 for each row due to rounding.
Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Reported How a School Employee Sexually

Harassed Them.
To someone
Action Total you know To you
Verbally 35.8 (n = 323) 33.9 (n = 243) 42.8 (n = 80)
Inappropriate touching 31.5 (n = 284) 29.5 (n = 211) 39.0 (n = 73)
Forced/consensual sexual contact 15.3 (n = 138) 17.2 (n = 123) 8.0 (n = 15)
Sexual messages or images 14.4 (n = 130) 16.5 (n = 118) 6.4 (n = 12)
Spying 3.1 (n = 28) 2.9 (n = 21) 3.7 (n = 7)
Note. Total of percentages are not 100 for each column due to rounding.
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Reported the Location Where Harassment

Occurred.
To someone
Location Total you know To you
Classroom 38.8 (n = 198) 37.7 (n = 141) 42.2 (n = 57)
Hall 12.2 (n = 62) 12.6 (n = 47) 11.1 (n = 15)
Athletic facilities on school grounds 17.1 (n = 87) 16.0 (n = 60) 20.0 (n = 27)
Cafeteria 2.9 (n = 15) 2.7 (n = 10) 3.7 (n = 5)
Locker room area 7.1 (n = 36) 8.0 (n = 30) 4.4 (n = 6)
Parking lot 3.1 (n = 16) 4.0 (n = 15) 0.7 (n = 1)
Outside the school on school grounds 10.6 (n = 54) 13.1 (n = 49) 3.0 (n = 4)
School transportation 3.9 (n = 20) 2.9 (n = 11) 6.7 (n = 9)
Field trip location 2.5 (n = 13) 2.4 (n = 9) 3.0 (n = 4)
Driver’s education car 1.8 (n = 9) 0.5 (n = 2) 5.2 (n = 7)
Note. Total of percentages are not 100 for each column due to rounding.
to describe how the school employee(s) committed the sexual harassment

which can be seen in Table 4. Of the 903 reports of sexual harassment, 35.8%
(n = 323) were verbally harassed, 31.5% (n = 284) were inappropriately
touched, 15.3% (n = 138) had forced or consensual sexual contact, 14.4%
(n = 130) received sexual messages or videos, and 3.1% (n = 28) felt spied on
by a school employee. The rates of each form of sexual harassment to some-
one the student knew and to themselves followed descending order with the
highest prevalence being verbal harassment and spying having the lowest
prevalence. It is important to note that respondents were able to select all that
apply, meaning their responses regarding type of harassment and location
may be in reference to multiple incidents by different individuals or incidents
committed by the same individual.
The students were asked to report where the sexual harassment occurred
to someone they knew and/or to themselves. There were multiple areas on
and off school grounds broken down into more specific areas as apparent in
Table 5. Of the 510 events described by respondents, school employees who
sexually harassed students had 38.8% (n = 198) of their incidences occur in a
classroom, the location most sexual harassment occurred to either someone
the student knew and/or to the students themselves. This was followed by
athletic facilities on school grounds where 17.1% (n = 87) of the events took
place. The hallway is where 12.2% (n = 62) of incidences occurred which
made up the third most overall location for sexual harassment. Outside of the
school yet on school grounds was where 10.6% (n = 54) of the events occurred.
The locker room area was where 7.1% (n = 36) of incidences occurred. The
cafeteria, parking lot, school transportation, field trip location, and driver’s
Grant et al. 21
Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Reported Who They Told About the
Incident.
Question N Percentage
Who did you tell about the incident?
Friends 55 51.9
Parent or family member 12 11.3
Teacher 5 4.7
School employee 5 4.7
Title IX coordinator 2 1.9
Other 2 1.9
No one 25 23.6
Did other school employees know about the event?
Yes 15 19.2
No 63 80.8
Did the school employee who knew file a formal complaint?
Yes 3 21.4
No 11 78.6
Note. Total of percentages are not 100 for each question due to rounding.
education car each made up less than 5% of where the school employee to
student sexual harassment occurred.
Students were asked to indicate which school employee or employees
sexually harassed them while they attended K-12 schools. Figure 5 lists the
school employees who sexually harassed the students in descending order.
Two hundred fifty-six students described 379 incidents of sexually harass-
ment, 57% (n = 216) of employees were in teaching positions such as teach-
ers, substitute teachers, teacher’s aides/assistants, or student teachers.
Teachers made up the highest percentage of offenders, 47.2% out of all school
employees. A combined 33.3% (n = 125) of employees such as athletic
coaches, athletic trainers or athletic assistant coaches were the second highest
group of offenders. Athletic coaches made up 19.3% of all the school
employee offenders and were the second most offending school employees.
There were 3.7% of students who were sexually harassed by employees in
positions like district administrators, principals, and vice principals. School
employees such as bus drivers and custodians made up 1.4% of the offenders.
School volunteers accounted for 1.3% of the offenders, and 3.4% of students
classified the offenders with dfifferent positions than those listed above.
Sexual Harassment Aftermath

Students who reported being sexually harassed by a school employee (n = 89)
were then asked with whom they discussed the incident, as shown in Table 6.
Sixty of the 89 students who experienced sexual harassment by a staff mem-
ber said they told someone (67.4%). Students could select all that apply, thus
some reported the incident to more than one person. The students who were
sexually harassed by school employees told their friends about the incident in
51.9% (n = 55) of the events. 11.3% (n = 12) confided in their parents or
another family member. Students reported to both teachers and school
employees in 4.7% (n = 5) of incidences. Title IX coordinators and other indi-
viduals were told 1.9% (n = 2) of the time. The remaining 23.6% (n = 25) of
the students chose to refrain from telling any person about the incident.
Students had told another school employee about the event 19.2% (n = 15) of
the time. Of the 15 students who informed a school employee, only 21.4%
(n = 3) of these employees filed a formal complaint to the school administra-
tors or authorities leaving 78.6% (n = 11) of mandatory reporters failing to
report the harassment the student received from a school employee.
The students who experienced sexual harassment from a school employee
were asked to list different ways the sexual harassment had affected them.
They were asked how upset they felt, in which ways they were emotionally
impacted, and in which ways they were behaviorally impacted by the event
as shown in Table 7. 20.2% (n = 17) of students said they were not upset,
51.2% (n = 43) were a little or somehwat upset, and 28.5% (n = 24) were upset
or very upset after being sexually harassed. The most common emotional
impact was feeling embarassed with 26.2% (n = 39) reports followed by
24.2% (n = 36) reporting feeling self-conscious. Feeling less sure or less con-
fident of oneself occurred to 14.8% (n = 22) of students and feeling afraid or
scared occurred to 14.1% (n = 21) of students. Each of the remaining emo-
tional impacts occurred to less than 10% of students. There were 27.6%
(n = 24) of students who did not talk much in class after getting sexually
harassed by a school employee and 12.6% (n = 11) who did not want to go to
school. The remaining behavioral impacts made up less than 10% of the reac-
tions among students.
The amount of sexual harassment incidences to someone the students
knew and to themselves was analyzed by the presence or absence of sexual
harassment materials and policies. The percentages and counts are depicted
in Table 8 and illustrated in Figure 6. Of students who attended schools that
provided materials, 43.7% (n = 86) knew someone who was sexually harassed
and 56.3% (n = 111) did not. This was compared to the students who attended
schools without materials, 57.4% (n = 140) knew someone who was sexually
harassed and 42.6% (n = 104) did not. A chi-square test resulted
Grant et al. 23
Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Reported How the Incident Impacted

Them.
Question N Percentage
How did you feel after the event occurred?
Not upset 17 20.2
A little upset 21 25.0
Somewhat upset 22 26.2
Upset 18 21.4
Very upset 6 7.1
What was the emotional impact?
Felt self-conscious 36 24.2
Felt embarrassed 39 26.2
Felt afraid or scared 21 14.1
Felt less sure of yourself or less confident 22 14.8
Felt confused who you are 8 5.4
Doubted whether you would graduate from high 2 1.3
school
Doubted whether you would continue your education 2 1.3
after graduating
Doubted whether you can have a happy, romantic 10 6.7
relationship
Other 9 6.0
What was the behavioral impact?
Had trouble sleeping 5 5.7
Lost appetite or wasn’t interested in eating 2 2.3
Didn’t want to go to school 11 12.6
Stayed home from school or cut a class 7 8.0
Didn’t talk as much in class 24 27.6
Stopped attending a particular activity or sport 8 9.2
Found it hard to pay attention in school 7 8.0
Changed your group of friends 2 2.3
Changed your seat in class to get farther away from 8 9.2
someone
Thought about changing schools 6 6.9
Got into trouble with school authorities 1 1.1
Got someone to protect you 1 1.1
Other 5 5.7
Note. Total of percentages are not 100 for each question due to rounding.
Table 8. Percentage of Reported Sexual Harassment Incidences (to Someone You

Know or to You) Dependent Upon School Districts’ Material and Policy Presence
or Absence.
To someone you know To you
2
X value X2 value
Yes No (p-value) Yes No (p-value)
Materials
Present 43.7 (n = 86) 56.3 (n = 111) 8.24 (.00) 16.0 (n = 31) 84.0 (n = 163) 1.97 (.16)
Absence 57.4 (n = 140) 42.6 (n = 104) 21.3 (n = 51) 78.8 (n = 189)
Total 51.2 (n = 226) 48.8 (n = 215) 18.9 (n = 82) 81.1 (n = 352)
Policy
Present 41.8 (n = 84) 58.2 (n = 117) 4.05 (.04) 13.5 (n = 27) 86.5 (n = 172) 0.75 (.39)
Absence 55.7 (n = 39) 44.3 (n = 31) 17.9 (n = 12) 82.1 (n = 55)
Total 45.4 (n = 123) 54.6 (n = 148) 14.6 (n = 39) 85.4 (n = 228)
in a statistically significant test statistic of 8.24 (p = .00). Among the same

students who attended schools with materials, 16.0% (n = 31) were sexually
harassed themselves and 84.0% (n = 163) were not. For schools without mate-
rials, 21.3% (n = 51) were sexually harassed and 78.8% (n = 189) were not.
For these analyses there were no statistically significant differences and
resulted in a chi-square test statistic of 1.97 (p = .16). Students who attended
schools with a policy, 41.8% (n = 86) knew someone who was sexually
harassed and 58.2% (n = 117) did not. These findings were compared with the
students who did not have a policy at their schools in which 55.7% (n = 39)
knew someone who was sexually harassed and 44.3% (n = 31) did not. This
resulted in a statistically significant chi-square statistic of 4.05 (p = .04). The
students who attended schools with a policy were sexually harassed them-
selves in 13.5% (n = 27) of incidences and not in 86.5% (n = 172). Of those
who did not have a policy at their school, 17.9% (n = 12) were sexually
harassed and 82.1% (n = 55) were not. For these analysis there were no statis-
tically significant differences and resulted in a chi-square statistic of 0.75
(p = .39). The percentage of sexual harassment incidents increased when
schools did not distribute/make accessible sexual harassment prevention
materials and decreased when sexual harassment policies were in place. The
two statistically significant chi-square tests show an association between a
student knowing someone who was sexually harassed and the presence or
absence of sexual harassment materials and policies at their K-12 school. The
other chi-square results are not statistically significant and do not suggest an
association between a student being sexually harassed and a school providing
or omitting materials or a policy.
Grant et al. 25
To someone you know
57.4% 55.7%
43.7% 41.8%
Materials No materials Policy No policy
To you
21.3%
17.9%
16.0%
13.5%
Materials No materials Policy No policy
Figure 6. Percentage of reported sexual harassment incidences (to someone you

know or to you) dependent upon school districts’ material and policy presence or
absence.
Discussion
Historical studies documenting the prevalence of sexual harassment in
K-12 schools have found that from 48% (Hill & Kearl, 2011) up to 70-90%
(Sandler & Stonehill, 2005) of students will experience sexual harassment
by students or school employees and 9.6% will experience harassment by a
school employee (Shakeshaft, 2004). The present study found that 256
respondents (50.1%) reported that they either knew someone who experi-
enced sexual harassment by a school employee or experienced it them-
selves. In addition, 42.8% (n = 218) of students reported some level of
sexual harassment from school employees to students (Very Low, Low,
Moderate, High, Very High) and 7.4% (n = 38) of participants believed the
staff-student harassment at their K-12 school district was at a “moderate,”
“high” or “very high” level. The results of this survey provide evidence that
sexual harassment continues to occur despite federal protections. Although
sexual harassment has been addressed more recently in the media with the
“Me Too” movement (2017), schools need to take action to prevent and
effectively respond to cases.
Sexual harassment can have lifelong consequences on students includ-
ing physical, psychological, and behavioral effects that can impact finan-
cial, physical, and emotional health (Afifi et al., 2007; Burgess et al., 2010;
Felitti et al., 1998; Winks, 1982). As noted in this study, of the participants
who reported being sexually harassed personally by a staff member (n = 89),
79.7% (n = 67) said that they were “somewhat upset,” “upset” or “very
upset” after being sexually harassed by a school employee and 26.2% felt
embarrassed, and 24.2% reporting feeling self-conscious and did not talk
much in class after getting sexually harassed by a school employee. Thus,
the cost of sexual harassment and misconduct is detrimental for student
success. More work needs to be done to explore the physical and emotional
effects of sexual misconduct as well as the cost to a person’s ability to be
successful in life.
Title IX is a powerful federal law that encompasses lofty ambitions to
protect students from sexual harassment. Without strong implementation and
accountability of this law, school districts are failing to comply, meaning the
laws may be “symbolic” without consequences for failure to comply (Blumer,
1986). Title IX requirements state that all students should be aware of who
their Title IX compliance officer is and know how to file grievances (B. Grant
et al., 2017; OCR, 2001, 2020). In this study, 94% of students reported being
unaware of who their Title IX compliance officer was and 70% were unaware
of how to file grievances. Given the majority of students are unaware of how
to file a complaint and with whom, reporting may never occur, which can
impact the effectiveness of Title IX. Of the students who reported experienc-
ing sexual harassment, only 1.9% said they told their Title IX officer. Of the
15 students who informed a school employee, only 21.4% (n = 3) of the
employees filed a formal complaint to the school administrators or authori-
ties leaving 78.6% (n = 11) not telling anyone about the harassment the stu-
dent received from a school employee. Despite laws and policies, in the
absence of quality training, ongoing and open communication, awareness,
Grant et al. 27
and effective leadership, implementation of Title IX legislation will continue

to fall short and further endanger students. This finding is consistent with
other policy implementation studies that examined Title IX implementation
(B. Grant et al., 2017) and suggests that further action is needed to improve
Title IX implementation and awareness.
Title IX also requires schools to make sure all students, staff, and parents
are aware of their sexual harassment policies and how to file a complaint (B.
Grant et al., 2017; OCR, 2001, 2020). Yet, only 39% of students said their
school distributed materials on sexual harassment and 40% knew that their
school had a sexual harassment policy. Of the students who knew their
schools had a sexual harassment policy, 23% of students said the policy spe-
cifically addressed employee-to-student sexual harassment. This finding is
consistent with other research which shows that schools often have a general
sexual harassment policy but do not specifically address employee-to-student
sexual harassment or provide examples of boundary crossing behaviors (B.
Grant et al., 2017). While the students were attending school, 39.5% (n = 202)
were friends with a school employee on social media, despite 17.8% (n = 36)
knowing that their school had a rule against employees befriending a current
student on social media, A total of 39.1% (n = 200) of students were allowed
by their school district to have a school employees’ cell phone number, 28%
(n = 143) were not allowed, and 32.9% (n = 168) were unsure.
Title IX also requires that materials be made publicly available and dis-
tributed to staff, parents, and students (OCR, 2001, 2020). Yet, less than half
of students reported that their schools had distributed materials or had a pol-
icy about sexual harassment or had a policy that students were aware of.
Results also found that schools where students reported that they did not have
materials or policies were more likely to have students report higher levels of
sexual harassment. This finding strongly suggests that many school districts
are not compliant with prevention and policy requirements, despite their legal
obligation. Additionally, this finding provides empirical evidence that if
schools do not provide sexual harassment materials, they are more likely to
experience higher rates of sexual harassment and misconduct in their school
district.
Previous research has found that sexual misconduct cases are made up
primarily by school employees, most often committed by teachers and
coaches at a school facility (Henschel & Grant, 2019). This study found
similar results; among reported employee-to-student sexual harassment
cases, 57% of employees were in teaching positions and 33.3% (n = 125)
were athletic employees. Results of this study also confirmed these results
with the classroom being the most frequent location for abuse to occur
(38.8%) followed by athletic facilities on school grounds (17.7%) and the
hallways (12.2%). Thus, the monitoring of school facilities is an important

element to prevent sexual harassment and misconduct at school.
Limitations and Future Directions

Prevalence studies in the field of school employee sexual misconduct are
limited and dated. Shakeshaft’s 2004 study which analyzed data collected in
the year 2000, is our only generalizable study to date and is now 22 years old.
While this study provides a convenience sample that is not generalizable, it is
a new number from which to determine an estimate of how often sexual mis-
conduct occurs. A larger, nationally representative study needs to be con-
ducted. Our department of education and justice do not currently collect data
that can determine the rate of sexual misconduct in K-12 schools in the
United States.
Recent studies of Title IX implementation have found that policies are not
being implemented and school district employees are unaware of their
requirements. School districts should review their policies, prevention efforts,
investigation procedures, and response efforts to ensure they are compliant
with Title IX. Accountability of this federal law needs to be more strictly
enforced by the Department of Education. Title IX studies need to be consis-
tently conducted to measure compliance with the law.
This study found school districts with student-reported policies and mate-
rials had lower rates of sexual harassment. While this finding is valuable in
convincing school districts to make sure policies and materials are distrib-
uted, it does not tell us how detailed those policies and materials should be
and how they should be distributed. Key elements of policies and best prac-
tices have been discussed by leaders in the field, but a study that examines the
effectiveness of policies and materials is needed to most effectively keep our
students safe in school.
The data in this study may also be limited due to the passage of time from
when a student completed the survey and the actual context of their school
experience which may have occurred years earlier. In this, there is a possibil-
ity that memory may not fully equate with actual circumstances and it is
likely that changes may have occurred at this school during the respondent’s
absence.
Future directions may be to conduct surveys with younger students cur-
rently enrolled in K-12 schools, which will require parent permission.
Data from current students will likely be more accurate than retrospective
surveys. In addition in may be helpful to conduct the surveys annually to
better track changes over time. Data collection efforts may be conducted
Grant et al. 29
by local school districts, or could be funded more broadly by the Department

of Education.
Appendix—Survey Questions
1. I agree to participate in the research study described above. [Yes/No]
2. How old are you? [Open ended]
3. What year did you graduate high school (YYYY)? [open ended]
4. What selection best describes the K-12 school district you last
attended? [rural, suburban, urban]
5. What is your gender [male/female]
a. Other (please specify)
6. Which race/ethnicity best describes you? (Please choose only one)
7. What was your typical letter grade in grades K-12?
8. How would you classify your family’s income class when you were
in grades K-12?
9. What selection best describes the K-12 school district you last
attended? [public, private]
10. Are you currently a college student?
11. What state was the K-12 school district that you last attended in?
12. Did your K-12 school district distribute materials on sexual harass-
ment prevention and education? [Yes, No, I don’t know]
13. Did these materials specifically address the sexual harassment stu-
dents may receive by school employees? [Yes, No, I don’t know]
14. Did your K-12 district have a sexual harassment prevention policy?
[Yes, No, I don’t know]
15. Did this policy specifically address the sexual harassment students
may receive by school employees? [Yes, No, I don’t know]
16. Did you know how to make a report or file a complaint of sexual
harassment at your K-12 school district? [Yes, No]
17. Did you know who your school’s Title IX officer was? [Yes/No]
18. Were you friends on Facebook/social media with any teacher or other
school employee? [Yes, No, I don’t know]
19. Did your K-12 district have a rule against becoming friends with any
teacher or other school employees on Facebook/social media? [Yes,
No, I don’t know]
20. Were you allowed by K-12 district employees to have teacher or
school employees’ cell phone numbers? [Yes, No, I don’t know]
21. Did you hang out with any teachers or school employees outside of
school or school related activities? [Yes/No]
22. What was the level of sexual harassment at your K-12 school district
for each of the following [Don’t Know, None, Very Low, Low,
Moderate, High, Very High]
a. Student to student
b. School employee to student
c. Student to teacher
d. School employee to school employee
e. Female to female
f. Male to male
g. Students sexually harassing LGBTQA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, asexual) students
h. School employees sexually harassing LGBTQ students
23. Did you fear being sexually harassed by any of the following while
attending your K-12 school district? [Yes, No, Somewhat]
a. Another student
b. A teacher
c. A music, drama or other after school activity supervisor
d. A coach
e. A school administrator
f. An adult
g. A community member
h. A family member
i. A parent (including a step-parent, parent partner (boyfriend or
girlfriend), or foster parent)
j. Other (please specify)
24. Did a school employee do any of the following to a student you knew
while in grades K-12 (You will be asked about your experiences in the
next section)?School employee includes teachers, coaches, adminis-
trators, janitors, assistants, or any other school employees. [Yes, No,
I don’t know]
a. Made sexual comments, jokes gestures, or looks
b. Showed, gave or left sexual pictures, sexual texts, videos, voice-
mail messages
c. Wrote sexual messages on social media such as snapchat,
Facebook, what’s app, tinder, grinder, etc.
d. Spread sexual rumors about them
e. Spied on them as they dressed or showered at schools
f. Spied in other dressing areas such as theater, drama, and music
areas
g. Flashed or mooned them
h. Touched grabbed, or pinched them in a sexual way
i. Intentionally brushed up against them in a sexual way
Grant et al. 31
j. Blocked their way or cornered them in a sexual way

k. Pulled at their clothing in a sexual way
l. Pulled off or down their clothing
m. Showed them pornographic images or videos
n. Masturbated in front of him/her
o Forced them to kiss him/her
p. Kissed them when they wanted it to happen
q. Forced them to have oral sex
r. Have oral sex when they wanted it to happen
s. Force them to have vaginal intercourse
t. Have vaginal intercourse when they wanted it to happen
u. Force them to have anal sex
v. Have anal sex when they wanted it to happen
w. Other (please specify)
25. Where did the event(s) occur? Please select all that apply.
a. In a classroom
b. In the hall
c. In the gym, playing field, courts or pool area
d. In the cafeteria
e. In the locker room area
f. In a parking lot
g. Outside the school, on school grounds (other than the parking
lot)
h. On school transportation on the way to school, on the way home,
or on a school trip
i. At a field trip location, including another school for an away
game
j. In the diver’s education car
k. Not applicable
l. Other (please specify)
26. How would you classify the school employee(s) that committed the
sexual harassment? Please select all that apply.
a. District Administrator
b. School Principal
c. School Assistant/Vice Principal
d. School Bus Driver
e. School Athletic Coach
f. School Athletic Assistant Coach
g. Athletic Trainer
h. Teacher
i. Teacher’s Aid/Assistant
j. Substitute Teacher
k. Elective Teacher
l. Custodian
m. Student Teacher
n. Volunteer
o Not applicable
p. Other (please specify)
27. Did a school employee do the following to you while enrolled in
grades K-12? School employee includes teachers, coaches, adminis-
trators, janitors, assistants, or any other school employees. [Yes, No,
I don’t know]
a. Made sexual comments, jokes gestures, or looks
b. Showed, gave or left sexual pictures, sexual texts, videos, voice-
mail messages
c. Wrote sexual messages on social media such as snapchat,
Facebook, what’s app, tinder, grinder, etc.
d. Spread sexual rumors about you
e. Spied on you as they dressed or showered at schools
f. Spied in other dressing areas such as theater, drama, and music
areas
g. Flashed or mooned you
h. Touched grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way
i. Intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way
j. Blocked their way or cornered you in a sexual way
k. Pulled at your clothing in a sexual way
l. Pulled off or down your clothing
m. Showed them pornographic images or videos
n. Masturbated in front of you
o Forced you to kiss him/her
p. Kissed you when they wanted it to happen
q. Forced you to have oral sex
r. Have oral sex when you wanted it to happen
s. Force you to have vaginal intercourse
t. Have vaginal intercourse when you wanted it to happen
u. Force you to have anal sex
v. Have anal sex when you wanted it to happen
w. Other (please specify)
x. Where did the event(s) occur? Please select all that apply.
y. In a classroom
z. In the hall
aa. In the gym, playing field, courts or pool area
Grant et al. 33
bb.In the cafeteria

cc.In the locker room area
dd.In a parking lot
ee.Outside the school, on school grounds (other than the parking
lot)
ff. On school transportation on the way to school, on the way home,
or on a school trip
gg. At a field trip location, including another school for an away
game
hh. In the diver’s education car
ii. Not applicable
jj. Other (please specify)
28. Who did you tell?
a. A friend
b. A parent or family member
c. A teacher
d. A school employee (other than a teacher)
e. Title IX coordinator
f. I did not tell anyone
g. Not applicable
h. Other (please specify)
i. How did you feel after the event occurred?
j. What was the emotional impact? Please check all that apply.
k. Felt self-conscious
l. Felt embarrassed
m. Felt afraid or scared
n. Felt less sure of yourself or less confident
o Felt confused about who you are
p. Doubted whether you have what it takes to graduate from high
school
q. Doubted whether you have what it take to continue your educa-
tion after high school
r. Doubted whether you can have a happy, romantic relationship
s. Not applicable
t. Other (please specify)
29. What was the behavioral impact, if any? Please check all that apply.
a. Had trouble sleeping
b. Lost appetite/wasn’t interested in eating
c. Didn’t want to go to school
d. Stayed home from school or cut a class
e. Didn’t talk as much in class
f. Stopped attending a particular activity or sport

g. Found it hard to pay attention in school
h. Changed my group of friends
i. Dropped out of a course
j. Changed the way you come to or went home from school
k. Changed your seat in class to get farther away from someone
l. Thought about changing schools
m. Changed schools
n. Got into trouble with school authorities
o. Got someone to protect you
p. None of the above
q. Not applicable
r. Other (please specify)
30. Did others (teachers, admin, students and etc.) know about the sexual
harassment you experienced? [Yes, No, not applicable]
31. Did the person who knew about your sexual harassment file a formal
complaint with school administrators, law enforcement, or child wel-
fare? [Yes, No, not applicable]
32. What could your K-12 district have done to better address sexual
harassment of students by students? [open-ended]
33. What could your K-12 district have done to better address sexual
harassment of students by school employees? [open-ended]
34. Is there anything else you would like to share with us? [open-ended]
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Partial funding for this study was pro-
vided by the Frost Foundation at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo. We are grateful to the Frost Foundation for their support of this study. We
would also like to thank the participants for their time to take this survey – this study
would not have been possible without you.
ORCID iD
Billie-Jo Grant https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-3281
Grant et al. 35
References
Abboud, M. J., Wu, G., Pedneault, A., Stohr, M. K., & Hemmens, C. (2020). Educator
sexual misconduct: A statutory analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(1),
133–153.
Afifi, T. O., Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., de Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., & Sareen, J.
(2007). Child abuse and health-related quality of life in adulthood. The Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195, 797–804.
Associated Press. (2018, October 9). Chicago District Loses Federal Grant Over Title
IX Violations. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/chicago-
district-loses-federal-grant-over-title-ix-violations/2018/10
Blad, E. (2017). DeVos actions on title IX, sex assaults could affect K-12 schools.
Education Week, 37(5), 4.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism. University of California Press.
Brotine, M. (2019). Prompt and equitable: Department of education proposes new
sexual harassment regs. The American School Board Journal, 206(1), 46–47.
Brown, S. (2017). How publicity affects reporting of sexual assaults. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 63(19), A23–A23.
Burgess, A. W., Welner, M., & Willis, D. G. (2010). Educator sexual abuse: Two case
reports. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 387–402.
Cristo, I. (2019). Stepping backward. Nation, 308(11), 10–10.
DeVos, B. A Serious Pursuit of Truth. (2017). A serious pursuit of truth. Vital
Speeches of the Day, 83, 337–342.
Did You Hear?. (2015). Did you hear? District Administration, 51(1), 18–18.
Dillon, S. (2010). Help Stop Bullying, U.S. Tells Educators. New York Times,
160(55205), 12.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards,
V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and
household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1998). Teenage peer sexual harassment: Implications for
social work practice in education. Social Work, 43(1), 55–64.
Fleming, K. K. (2014). Bullying on the basis of sex: The eighth circuit properly estab-
lished title ix standards of liability for schools in wolfe v. Fayetteville, arkansas
school district. Creighton Law Review, 47(3), 521–538.
Frost, J. (2005). Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. Georgetown Journal of
Gender and the Law, 6, 561.
Goldman, R. (2009, February 9). It's the Media That's Too Hot for Teacher. ABC
News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/media-hot-teacher/story?id=3004728.
Grant, B., Wilkerson, S., Pelton, D., Cosby, A., & Henschel, M. (2017). K–12 school
employee sexual misconduct: Lessons learned from Title IX policy implementa-
tion.
Grant, B.-J., Wilkerson, S., & Henschel, M. (2019). Passing the trash: Absence of
state laws allows for continued sexual abuse of K-12 students by school employ-
ees. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(1), 84–104.
Gruber, J. E., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual
harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of Adolescents. Sex
Roles, 59(1-2), 1–13.
Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering?: Gender differences in
experience of, and reactions to, sexual harassment among U.S, High School
Students. Gender & Society, 14(6), 718–746.
Hartle, T. (2017). Providing transparency to the Title IX process. New England
Journal of Higher Education, 1. https://nebhe.org/journal/providing-transpar-
ency-to-the-title-ix-process/
Henschel, M., & Grant, B. (2019). Exposing School Employee Sexual Abuse and
Misconduct: Shedding Light on a Sensitive Issue. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
28(1).
Hill, C., & Kearl, H.; American Association of University Women. (2011). Crossing
the line: Sexual harassment at school (No. 978-1-879922-41–9). American
Association of University Women website: http://ezproxy.dbq.edu:2048/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=E
D525785&site=ehost-live
Jones, J. (2010). Education department reviewing complaints about inequities in K-12
discipline, supportive services. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 27(20), 6–6.
Keierleber, M. (2017, August 10). The Younger Victims of Sexual Violence in
School. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/
the-younger-victims-of-sexual-violence-in-school/536418/
Klein, A., & Blad, E. (2018). DeVos rewrites Title IX guidance on sexual assault and
harassment. Education Week, 38(14), 8–8.
Kurtz, H., Lloyd, S., Harwin, A., & Osher, M.; Editorial Projects in Education (EPE),
E. W. R. C. (2018). Sexual harassment and assault in the K-12 workplace:
Results of a national survey.
Lichty, L. F., & Campbell, R. (2012). Targets and witnesses: Middle school students’
sexual harassment experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 32(3), 414–
430.
Lichty, L. F., Torres, J. M., Valenti, M. T., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Sexual harass-
ment policies in K-12 schools: Examining accessibility to students and content.
Journal of School Health, 78(11), 607–614.
Mackinnon, C. A. (2016). In their hands: Restoring institutional liability for sexual
harassment in education. The Yale Law Journal, 125(7), 2038–2105.
Mayer, E. (2016). Schools are employers too: rethinking the Institutional liability
standard in title IX teacher-on-student sexual harassment suits. Georgia Law
Review, 50(3), 909–946.
Me Too Movement. (2017). United States. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/
item/lcwaN0025442/
Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding
teachers’ (non) interventions. Gender and Education, 20(6), 555–570.
Meyer, E. J., & Somoza-Norton, A. (2018). Addressing sex discrimination with Title
IX coordinators in the #MeToo era. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(2), 8–11.
Grant et al. 37
Meyer, E. J., Somoza-Norton, A., Lovgren, N., Rubin, A., & Quantz, M. (2018). Title
IX coordinators as street-level bureaucrats in U.S. Schools: Challenges address-
ing Sex discrimination in the #MeToo Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
26, 68.
Miller, E. M., & Mondschein, E. S. (2017). Sexual harassment and bullying: Similar,
but not the same. What school officials need to know. The Clearing House A
Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas, 90(5-6), 191–197.
Mitchell, M. W. (2010). Child sexual abuse: A school leadership issue. Clearing
House, 83(3), 101–104.
Prairie View A&M University. (2021, April 26). Study: Teachers' gender, sexual-
ity, age affect perceptions of sexual misconduct of students. PVAMU Home.
Retrieved November 20, 2021, from https://www.pvamu.edu/blog/study-teach-
ers-gender-sexuality-age-affect-perceptions-of-sexual-misconduct-of-students/.
Sandler, B. R., & Stonehill, H. M. (2005). Student-to-student sexual harassment,
K-12: Strategies and solutions for educators to use in the classroom, school, and
community. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing literature.
U.S. Department of Education. Doc #2004-09.
Shakeshaft, C. (2018). Preventing sexual assault in schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
100(2), 40–45.
Shakeshaft, C., Smith, R. L., Keener, S. T., & Shakeshaft, E. (2019). A standard of
care for the prevention of sexual misconduct by school employees. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 28(1), 105–124.
Surface, J. L., Stader, D. L., & Armenta, A. D. (2014). Educator sexual misconduct
and nondisclosure agreements: Policy guidance from Missouri’s Amy Hestir
Student Protection Act. Clearing House, 87(3), 130–133.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved August 21, 2019, from http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/pdf/USCODE-2010-title42-
chap21-subchapV.pdf
Title VIII General Provisions [Laws]. (2019, March 20). Retrieved August 30,
2019, from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/legislation/title-viii.
html#sec8546
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d). Retrieved August 21, 2019, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
(Title IX) Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§1681 - 1688 (2018).
US Department of Education [US DOE], Office for Civil Rights. (2001, January).
Revised sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employ-
ees, other students or third parties. https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/
pdf/shguide.pdf
US Department of Education [US DOE], Office for Civil Rights. (2020, May).
Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiv-
ing federal financial assistance. 34 CFR Part 106.
Winks, P. L. (1982). Legal limitations of sexual contact between teachers and stu-
dents. The Journal of Law of Education, 11, 437–477.
Young, A. M., Grey, M., & Boyd, C. J. (2009). Adolescents’ experiences of sexual
assault by peers: Prevalence and nature of victimization occurring within and
outside of school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(8), 1072–1083.
Author Biographies
Billie-Jo Grant – is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and research stud-
ies on school employee sexual misconduct funded by organizations such as the
Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education and the Centers for Disease
Control. She has been integral in providing legislators with evidence to pass state and
federal legislation and has served as an advisor to the Office for Civil Rights, the
Department of Education, the Ontario College of Teachers, and as an expert witness
for civil cases. She is the COO of McGrath Training Solutions where she provides
training to help schools become safer, more effective learning environments. She also
serves as a lecturer at Cal Poly State University and as a board member for
S.E.S.A.M.E.
Jeffrey Haverland, Ed.D, is the assistant department chair of teacher education and
assistant professor at the University of Dubuque. Previously, he was a middle school
science teacher, curriculum coordinator, principal. He supports educator and student
safety and risk management through ethics trainings; volunteer opportunities and
local, state, and national advocacy.
Jessica Kalbfleish, is a Channel Enablement Analyst at Ribbon Communications.
She has a B.S. in Statistics from Cal Poly State University. She was a Frost Researcher
for this study and helped to clean the survey database, calculate descriptive and infer-
ential statistics and develop tables and charts.
View publication stats

2023 EducationalPolicy TitleIXPolicyImplementationPrevalence Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 EducationalPolicy TitleIXPolicyImplementationPrevalence Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Title IX Policy Implementation and Sexual

Article in Educational Policy · April 2023

Department of Justice School Safety Study View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Billie-Jo Grant1 , Jeffrey Haverland2,

discrimination and a violation of a person’s civil rights under Title IX

Application of Title IX in K-12 Schools

A school employee conditioning an educational benefit or service upon a

The inclusion of school employees in the definition is indicative of “educator

Existing Title IX Research in K-12 Schools

schools (elementary and secondary) for mishandling incidents under Title IX

Challenges to Title IX Implementation in K-12 Schools

2017). Failure to acknowledge sexual harassment and respond appropriately

School Employee Perpetrated Sexual Harassment in K-12 Schools

communication or contact that is not overtly sexual, physical or malicious

created legal ramifications for educator misconduct and violations of Title IX

Defining misconduct; triggering automatic investigations; providing

Even plans in place require a substantial amount of training and support to be

Challenges to Title IX Implementation in K-12 Schools

The state of Title IX became more precarious under former Education

The Relationship Between Title IX Implementation and Sexual

Student-to-Student Sexual Harassment. Females tended to observe a higher

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4

Male Female Rural Suburban Urban Both Or Neither

Figure 1. Level of student-to-student sexual harassment by gender, location of

1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1

Male Female Rural Suburban Urban Both Or Neither

Figure 2. Level of staff-to-student sexual harassment by gender, location of

Table 1. Level of Student-to-Student Sexual Harassment Levels by Type, Gender,

N Mean Std dev t-test/F-test p-value Effect size

on sexual harassment prevention and education. These responses were classi-

Table 2. Level of Staff-to-Student Sexual Harassment Levels by Type, Gender,

N Mean Std dev t-test/F-test p-value Effect size

Staff-to-Student Sexual Harassment. Females tended to observe a higher levels

to their students regarding staff-to-student harassment 5.9% of schools had

School District’s Effort to Prevent Sexual Harassment

Yes (n=222) Somewhat (n=436)

An after school activity 3.6%

Figure 3. Percentage of students reporting by whom they feared being sexually

Yes (n=31) No (n=478)

district’s policy. Out of 511 students, 29.6% (n = 151) understood how to

Sexual Harassment by School Employees

Athletic coach 19.3%

Athletic trainer 7.1%

Athletic assistant coach 6.9%

Substitute teacher 4.0%

Assistant/vice principal 2.4%

Teacher's aid/assistant 2.4%

Student teacher 2.4%

Elective teacher 1.1%

District administrator 0.5%

Bus driver 0.3%

Figure 5. Percentage of students reporting which school employee(s) sexually

of respondents (n = 250, 48.9%) reported that someone they knew experi-

Table 3. Percentage of Students Who Reported on Their School District’s

Contribution Yes No Not sure

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Reported How a School Employee Sexually

Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Reported the Location Where Harassment

to describe how the school employee(s) committed the sexual harassment

Sexual Harassment Aftermath

Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Reported How the Incident Impacted

Table 8. Percentage of Reported Sexual Harassment Incidences (to Someone You

in a statistically significant test statistic of 8.24 (p = .00). Among the same